Cuestion de La Pedofilia
Cuestion de La Pedofilia
Cuestion de La Pedofilia
The International
(Lesbian and) Gay
Association and the
question of pedophilia:
Tracking the demise
of gay liberation ideals
Sexualities
2014, Vol. 17(1/2) 121138
! The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1363460713511103
sex.sagepub.com
David Paternotte
Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
Abstract
In 19931994, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) lost its observer
status in the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) because US
conservative groups publicised the membership of two pedophile groups. This article
examines debates on pedophilia within ILGA before this event, and documents the slow
decline of pro-pedophilia stances. It relates them to wider debates on gay liberation, and
argues that pro-pedophilia arguments lost most of their appeal when new ways of
imagining homosexual emancipation and new political goals emerged. Beyond the
issue of intergenerational sex, it shows these debates were also about the kind of
movement activists wanted to build together.
Keywords
Activism, children, gay liberation, ILGA, pedophilia
In 2011, David Norris was forced to withdraw from the campaign for the Irish
presidency before coming back into the race a few months later. An Irish journalist
had accused him of condoning pedophilia because of remarks on Greek pedophilia and earlier declarations about his attraction towards mature men when he
was younger (McDonald, 2011a). It was later revealed that Norris had also
appealed for clemency over the conviction of his former lover who had had sex
with a 15-year-old boy (McDonald, 2011b). The news came as a shock, for David
Norris was a respectable member of the Irish senate, a Joyce scholar from Trinity
Corresponding author:
David Paternotte, Metices/Institut de Sociologie, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue Jeanne, 44 CP 124,
1050 Bruxelles, Belgium.
Email: [email protected]
122
Sexualities 17(1/2)
College and one of Irelands most prominent gay liberationists, who has taken his
countrys policy on same-sex intercourses to the European Court of Human Rights
and won.
Most people had overlooked that, although gay activists had tried to dissociate
themselves from pedophilia in many parts of the world, the issue had not always
been a taboo in the gay movement. Although controversial, it was long debated
and these discussions were part of the legacy of gay liberation. Besides, despite
often dicult relations, pedophile and homosexual groups, which could overlap,
have sometimes fought together, and pedophilia was explicitly backed by some gay
liberationists.1
This article deals with debates about pedophilia2 within the International
Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). David Norris is one of its founding members, and ILGA debates about pedophilia were part of the Irish controversy
(Swords, 2011). It documents the slow decline of pro-pedophile stances from
1978, when ILGA was established, until the mid 1990s, and relates it to wider
debates on gay liberation. Indeed, defenders of pedophilia were using this rhetoric
to advocate their rights while their opponents were articulating more pragmatic
ways of imagining gay and lesbian struggles. Beyond the issue of intergenerational
sex, these debates were also about the kind of movement activists wanted to build
together.
Although they highlight some long-term eects of these mobilisations,3 accounts
of gay liberation movements tend to depict them as short-lived. For instance, in her
book on the history of the homosexual movement in San Francisco, Elizabeth A
Armstrong writes: gay liberation was born out of the encounter between an established homophile movement and the New Left . . . by the end of 1971 radical gay
liberation would be in decline, along with the rest of the New Left (Armstrong,
2002: 80). Similarly, Jerey Weeks, who participated in the London Gay
Liberation Front, remembers:
The early 1970s mark the turning-point in the evolution of a homosexual
consciousness . . . Of this new movement, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF), which
sprang up in London in autumn of 1970, was the most typical and dynamic representative. By the middle of the decade, though the name lingered on, the GLF had
become a nostalgic memory for most of its participants, and a bogeyman for its
opponents. (Weeks, 1990: 185. See also Plummer, 1999: 133).
Paternotte
123
still in existence (Churchill, 2009; Rupp, 2011), it was founded in 1978, that is at the
very end of the gay liberation period. Although it cannot be described as a gay
liberation organisation, it was still inuenced by some (of the) liberationist ideals.
In addition, pedophilia had been at the centre of erce debates since 1978. It led to
a scandal, which burst out in 1993 and cost ILGA its recently obtained observer
status in the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
Because ILGA is a transnational gay umbrella organisation, its study also
allows one to grasp the distinctive national approaches as well as dissent among
member organisations. The transnational structure of ILGA also permits us to
question the standard periodisation of gay liberation. Indeed, the history of lesbian
and gay movements is still poorly known, and accounts are built on a limited set of
national experiences. Nonetheless, evidence shows that gay liberation reached some
countries later and/or has lasted longer, such as in France (Jackson, 2009) or in
Spain (Calvo, 2005). In others like Belgium, it seems to have barely inuenced
homosexual activism (Paternotte, 2011).
This article is organised in four sections. After a brief exploration of the status of
pedophilia within gay liberation thought and activism, debates within ILGA will be
examined. Three elements, which have structured this 16-year debate, will be scrutinised: the status given to gay identity and its relation to the need for a wider
solidarity with other sexual minorities, the increasing dissociation between the
issues of pedophilia and age of consent laws, and the priority given to pragmatic
and moderate aims and strategies over utopian or revolutionary politics. These
axes are studied historically, before showing how they were combined during the
UN crisis of 19931994.
Given the limited length of this article, it focuses on ILGA as an organisation,
and does not investigate at depth the socio-historical context, which allowed pedophilia to become one of the main contemporary sexual taboos. In addition,
although highly needed, the scope of such an enterprise as well as the lack of
serious research on this topic in a wide range of countries would easily lead to
amalgamating distinctive national situations, which went through dierent social
processes and/or changed at a dierent pace. This research is mostly based on
ILGAs archives in Brussels, Amsterdam and London, and is part of a broader
research project on ILGA and ILGA-Europe, its European branch founded
in 1996.
124
Sexualities 17(1/2)
Paternotte
125
feminist circles. Both Nancy Whittier (2009) and Laurie Boussaguet (2008) have
highlighted the critical role of feminist groups in their studies about the emergence
of the notion of sexual abuse and its association with intergenerational sex in
countries as varied as the USA, the UK, France and Belgium.
126
Sexualities 17(1/2)
eorts towards the liberation of gay people,5 and this document, which mentioned
notions such as pride and oppression, stressed the importance of coming out.
The discourse of some member organisations was also reminiscent of the gay
liberation rhetoric. In the rst IGA Bulletin, Page Grubb from the Dutch COC
suggested a connection between the foundation of IGA and the idea of gays being
subversive transnational sexual outlaws:
Gays have always deed categorization . . . Categorization-by-passport is one of the
many such labels weve managed to shake o, setting up through the years an international network that dees the attempt to order a most delightful chaos. Were
everywhere, were our own inns our own immigration procedures, our own transportation systems. We y millions of miles around the world to make love. Were global
bhikkus. (Grubb, 1978: 9)
This discourse was conrmed a few years later when COC members wrote in a
document highlighting the need of an international tribunal on homosexuality:
WE DONT WANT THE CAKE . . . WE WANT THE BAKERY . . . We dont want a
place under the sun to ourselves; we want no ghetto, we want a society that is free
from all structural barriers that prevent humanity to liberate itself from oppressive
norms and morals, from superstition and prejudice, from aggression and stupidity.
(IGA Action secretariat, 1983: 2)
Paternotte
127
128
Sexualities 17(1/2)
of a link between the repression of (paedo)sexuality and the appearance of repressive sexuality (rape and sexual assaults). At the same time, they were claiming that,
as children have limited power at present to determine the course of their own
lives; a liberation movement should aim to change the relations between adults and
children to provide children with more ability to control the course of their own
lives.7 They raised the issue of age of consent laws, but a consensus could not be
reached concerning their overall abolition.
The pedophilia workshop, which included representatives of some pedophile
groups (the German DSAP, the British Fallen Angels and the French Groupe de
Recherche pour une Enfance Dierente), proposed another resolution suggesting
to continue the debate, both within national organisations and at ILGA.8
Although this document acknowledged tensions and debates within IGA, its preamble was clearly inspired by a liberationist agenda. It claimed that arguments
about this topic were often used against homosexual liberation, emphasised the
place liberation of paedosexuality takes in the whole of sexual liberation, and
stressed our distinctive ability, derived from our own experience of oppression
as gay men and lesbian women, to contribute to the discussion of the liberation
of paedosexuality.9 Age of consent laws were condemned, and activists claimed the
right to sexual self-determination irrespective of age.
A discussion paper prepared by the COC on request of the 1980 Barcelona
conference and discussed at the 1981 Torre Pelice conference, which relied on an
earlier decision by the COC annual congress (Sandfort, 1987b), conrmed this
stance. It urged homosexuals to show their solidarity with pedophiles, particularly
because both groups suer from normative compulsory heterosexuality, and maintains that a successful homo-emancipation should include pedo-emancipation.
It also calls for the abolition of age of consent laws, claiming that children
often have the same capacity for sexual response as adults.10
Paternotte
129
people formed their own groups and workshops both inside and outside ILGA. At
the beginning, they were defending positions close to the ones of pro-pedophilia
activists. But, while they were keeping the liberationist tone and calling for the abolition of age of consent laws, they were simultaneously emphasising the specicity
of their claims.11
This discourse changed dramatically a few years later, and by 19861987 young
activists were defending lower age of consent laws instead of no limitation at all,
arguing that young people need sexual protection from adults.12 Therefore, while
ages of consent were lowered in several European countries, issues of pedophile
rights and age of consent laws were dissociated, and an increasing interest on power
imbalances in sexual relationships arose in lesbian and gay groups.
Secondly, the content of discussions within the ILGA womens group altered.
According to the minutes of the 1987 conference, female activists, who were
increasingly regarding pedophilia as a male issue, were now urging ILGA to
strongly object to adult plenary sexual activity (that is, the manipulation of
sexual parts of the body) with persons who have not yet reached their psychosocial, biological and emotional adolescence, and recommending all resolutions
made at previous ILGA conferences supporting adult sexual activity (as dened
above) with persons who have not yet reached their psycho-social, emotional and
biological adolescence be rejected.13 This was a major change compared to the
positions held in 1979, and, while female activists were articulating a rather constructivist approach to sexuality in the past, they were now referring themselves to
the psychological and biological development of the child.
Thirdly, initiatives concerning childrens rights began to emerge, for instance
through the organisation of thematic workshops at annual conferences. These initiatives, encouraged by the other two developments outlined before, caused major
tensions. Two Norwegian groups, Fellesraadet for Homole Organisasjoner
I Norge (FHO) and Det Norske Forbundet/48 (DNF/48), prepared a recommendation proposal for the childrens rights workshop at the 1989 Vienna Conference,
attempting to strengthen the decisions taken the year before. For them,
ILGA should remain an organization for lesbian and gay rights . . . ILGA should
continue working with: questions concerning equality of age of consent between
homo- and heterosexuals; questions concerning sexually mature young peoples
right to sexuality. Sexual relations between sexually immature children and adults
may often constitute an abuse of the child. ILGA should work against such abuse
on a global basis.14
130
Sexualities 17(1/2)
the minutes of the pedophilia workshop indicate that participants were feeling
increasingly threatened within ILGA and were suspicious about a possible
hidden agenda.16
As a result of these three dynamics, the issues of pedophile rights and young
peoples sexual autonomy became progressively dissociated. This is further conrmed by the proceedings of the workshop on sexual abuse of children held at
the Athens conference in 1989, which mention that several people felt that it is
important to keep the two matters clearly separate and that much confusion has
arisen in the past from mixing the two subjects and from the choice of terms
(i.e. abuse).17
These positions were reinforced during the 1990 Stockholm conference,18 when
ILGA clearly endorsed the rights of the child. The following resolution was almost
unanimously passed:
1. ILGA supports the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and
develop her or his sexuality; 2. Major power imbalances create the potential for
child abuse. ILGA condemns the exploitative use of power dierences to coerce
others into sexual relationships; 3. Every child has the right to protection from
sexual exploitation and abuse, including prostitution and involvement in pornography; 4. We share the anger of all those damaged by such exploitation and oer
our support; 5. ILGA should strive to eliminate the conditions that make coercion and
exploitation possible.19
The balance between pro- and anti-pedophilia advocates and their respective
inuence on ILGAs ocial position was shifting and the gap between them had
dramatically widened. If ILGA had not yet condemned pedophilia and was still
promoting a strategy based on dialogue and mutual understanding, pro-pedophilia
activists were feeling less comfortable than a few years before and struggled to
convince their fellow activists to support their claims. Their discourse was still
making reference to gay liberation, but it had become less audible.20
Paternotte
131
Very quickly, however, the government of the USA stated publicly that it could
not support ILGAs consultative status as long as pro-pedophilia organisations
remained members. These statements, along with pressures from (mostly)
American members, urged ILGA to change its response. In November 1993,
after a meeting of the secretariats committee in New York attended by two
representatives of NAMBLA, ILGA requested NAMBLA and two other
groups (Martijn and Project Truth/Free) to resign. Negotiations to convince
them to leave the organisation began to take place, but remained unfruitful.
During the 1994 annual conference, held in New York to commemorate the
Stonewall riots, pedophilia was clearly condemned, and these groups were
expelled by a motion approved by more than 80% of the members (214 in
favour, 30 against).
At the end of the meeting, ILGA claimed it had conrmed [its] determination to
ght for childrens right to be protected from sexual abuse. The question of pedophile membership is now closed . . . ILGA can now return to the real goals of all our
members: the protection of and ght for the basic human rights of lesbians and gay
men in the world.22 Nonetheless, long-standing member organisations and prominent voices within the organisation contested this decision. The Catalan FAGC
denounced external pressures from the USA, Institut Lambda soon left ILGA, and
Maria Pronk, a key COC member involved in contacts with United Nations,
rejected the ostensible association between pedophilia and sexual abuse. She suggested pedophile groups be given observer status while backing the motion for
pragmatic reasons.
These decisions did not suce to convince the US conservative Right. In
January 1994, the American Senate adopted a motion drafted by Senator Jesse
Helms asking the USA to withhold all funds given to the UN if the President could
not certify to the Congress by the end of September 1994 that no UN agency was
granting a status to an organisation promoting pedophilia. A new scandal occurred
in September 1994 as a result of further screening by US ocials, who discovered
that the Munich-based group Verein fur sexuelle Gleichberechtigung (VSG) had a
pedophile sub-group holding meetings in its premises. ILGAs consultative status
was consequently suspended by the ECOSOC in accordance with a motion of the
USA, and ILGAs members were again screened to decide whether to restore or
denitively cancel ILGAs membership.
132
Sexualities 17(1/2)
*After unfruitful talks, VSG membership was suspended until the following
annual conference, which was to take place in Rio de Janeiro. During this meeting,
ILGA strengthened its rejection of pedophilia and its support for childrens sexual
autonomy and protection. Ocial goals were expanded to include the promotion
of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights of the child. A specic resolution on accreditation at the
UN further conrmed the fact that ILGA neither promoted pedophilia, nor sought
its legalisation, although it was defending the right of every individual, regardless
of age, to explore and develop her own sexuality. Finally, all organisations were
summoned to send a document supporting the new goals of the organisation in
order not to lose their membership.
If this crisis was the external element necessary to expel pedophile groups from
ILGA after long and erce internal debates, it had been prepared by the previous
discursive and conceptual changes outlined earlier. Indeed, the discursive context
and the power relationships within ILGA had dramatically changed when the UN
crisis nally broke out. Therefore, former arguments relating the issue of solidarity
with other sexual minorities and to the dissociation between paedophilia and young
peoples sexuality were still present. However, a more recent argument became
central and was combined with the two former ones: political pragmatism and
strategy. The UN status, which had been pursued since 1978, was central to
ILGAs aims and strategies, and could not be jeopardised because of this scandal.
Internal debates, including numerous letters sent by member organisations to
ILGAs secretariat, also conrmed the geographical and cultural divide. The
most hostile organisations came from the USA, Australia, Sweden or the UK.
Reversely, although they may have voted for the expulsion of pedophiles for pragmatic reasons, groups from Brazil, France, Spain, Germany, Belgium or the
Netherlands proved to be more sympathetic, or at least expressed doubts about
the way the whole issue was handled.
The most ancient axis of the debate, opposing the need of solidarity with other
sexual minorities to an exclusive focus on gay and lesbian issues, was still present.
According to the secretariats committee:
Some pointed out that it clearly must be the prerogative of the ILGA membership to
dene what kind of work we want and need an international umbrella like ILGA for.
Their answer was that this be limited to the liberation of lesbian and gay people, that it
would only blur our focus and hinder our progress if we took on other issues.23
Paternotte
133
For instance, the Swedish RFSL maintained that a sexual relationship between a
child and an adult by denition implies sexual abuse, since it cannot be determined
whether the relationship is voluntary or not.25 Conversely, pro-pedophilia activists
kept repeating that intergenerational sex could be consented, and that they were
condemning any form of sexual abuse while emphasising that young peoples
sexual self-determination implies the right to engage in sexual intercourse
with adults.
Finally, the argument of political eciency and the need for a strategic approach
proved to be decisive. For British activist Peter Ashman, one of the founders of
ILGA who initiated its human rights strategy, defending pedophile groups was:
likely to hamper ILGAs ability at an international institutional level. It may also
jeopardise ILGAs relations with specialist UN agencies like [the] WHO [World
Health Organisation] with whom ILGA works on issues related to HIV and AIDS,
and damage ILGAs credibility with member states of the UN. There is also the
possibility that ILGAs members will leave the organisation to set up a new one
which would be able to seek consultative status and do such work.26
Conclusion
In this article, I have examined the transformation of the relationship to pedophilia
in the International Lesbian and Gay Association. If the scandal which broke out
in 1993 at the UN is widely known, this issue was far from being new and had been
discussed at almost every annual conference since the foundation of the organisation in 1978. A careful analysis of the debates unveils a profound transformation of
the position of this organisation, which moved from a dialogue with pro-pedophilia
groups and an endorsement of some of their claims to a clear condemnation and a
few expulsions between 1993 and 1995.
The study of this debate also oers a way to examine the persistence of a gay
liberation rhetoric after the demise of gay liberation groups. Indeed, defenders of
pedophilia within ILGA often made reference to the broader aim of sexual liberation and to some of its key principles. The most common discourse located gay
liberation within the broader frame of a liberation of all oppressed sexual minorities, and called upon ILGAs members to show their solidarity with pedophiles,
portrayed as the victims of a repressive sexual order. But pro-pedophilia activists
also maintained a maximalist denition of young peoples sexual autonomy and
of their ability to consent to sexual relationships, denouncing the notion of abuse
and combating age of consent laws. They were ultimately promoting a more
134
Sexualities 17(1/2)
Notes
1. This article mostly investigates male activism, reflecting the gender unbalance within
ILGA and most homosexual organisations at the time. The specific contribution of lesbians within ILGA and their discrepancies are however discussed at length.
2. Vocabulary is always a sensitive issue, particularly on controversial topics. I use the terms
pedophilia and pedophile, reflecting the language in most documents I have consulted.
However, other notions were also used, as shown by a footnote in a 1987 report from
NAMBLA to ILGA. This indicates: For the purposes of this report, gay pedophilia
will refer to sexual relationships between men and boys who have not reached adolescence. Pederasty will refer to relationships between men and adolescent boys. Man/
boy love and intergenerational sex will encompass both categories (NAMBLA, 1988:
24). See also Sandfort, Brongersma and van Naerssen (1991).
3. With two radically distinct perspectives, see DEmilio (1983) and Epstein (1999).
Paternotte
135
4. It must be said that, as will appear in the article, stances were often more complex, and
some activists could for instance defend liberal attitudes towards intergenerational sex
although they had a difficult relation with pedophile activists. The pro and anti labels
are therefore used for the clarity of the argument.
5. IGA, Foundation document (as approved by the members of the Association on Sunday
15th April, 1979), s.l., 1979.
6. Fallen Angels, [Letter to International Gay Association & Member Organizations],
London, 19801981.
7. IGA, Workshops. A. Womens Caucus, IGA Newsletter 80(1), Reports of the
2nd Annual Conference, 1980, p. 5.
8. It was passed by a large majority of votes, but CHE voted against.
9. Pedophilia, IGA Newsletter 80(1), Reports of the 2nd Annual Conference, 1980, p. 7.
10. COC, Discussion paper to Torino, in IGA, Conference papers, 1981, p. 11.
11. See Statement and resolutions of 2nd international gay youth congress, IGA Bulletin,
1985 (4) p. 67.
12. ILGA, Conference report of the 1987 Cologne conference, 1987, p. 24.
13. ILGA, Conference report of the 1987 Cologne conference, 1987, p. 22.
14. ILGA, Conference report of the 1987 Cologne conference, 1987, p. 29.
15. DNF48 and FHO, Sexual abuse of children, ILGA, Pre-conference papers, 1989.
16. ILGA, Report of the 1989 Vienna Conference, 1989, p. 41.
17. ILGA, Conference papers for the ILGA European regional conference, 1989, p. 13.
18. ILGA, Minutes of the childrens Rights Workshop, in ILGA, Conference papers, 1990,
pp. 3840.
19. ILGA, Brief explanatory note on secretariats committee positions regarding the debate on
pedophilia in ILGA and the VSG suspension, n.d., p. 1.
20. See for instance: Martin Burgess, Pedophilia as the cutting Edge of gay Liberation? in
ILGA, Pre-conference papers Stockholm 1990, 1990, p. 16. NAMBLA, Nambla responds
to the advocacy of childrens rights by the FHO and DNF48, 10 April 1990, p. 4.
21. ILGA, Statement, Brussels, 14 October 1993.
22. ILGA, Conference report, 1994, p. 9.
23. ILGA, Brief explanatory note on secretariats committee positions regarding the debate on
pedophilia in ILGA and the VSG suspension, n.d., p. 2. (See also Deschamps and
Limelette, 1994: 6).
24. VSG, Report: ILGA caught between conformity and gay solidarity: UN status versus
pedophilia, Munich, 1995, p. 7. See also NAMBLA, NAMBLA Affirms Membership
in ILGA, New York, 27 December 1993, p. 3.
25. ILGA, ILGA Bulletin, 2/94, p. 16. See also Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition
International, [Letter to Rebecca Sevilla and Hans Hjerpekjon], Washington,
24 November 1993.
26. Peter Ashman, ILGA and Paedophilia the NAMBLA debate, March 1994.
27. VSG, Report: ILGA caught between conformity and gay solidarity: UN status versus
pedophilia, Munich, 1995, p. 7. See also John Prinser, [Letter to the members of
ILGA secretariat committee], Amsterdam, December 1993.
References
Altman D (1972) Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation. Sidney: Angus and Robertson.
136
Sexualities 17(1/2)
Paternotte
137
138
Sexualities 17(1/2)